CTNF 18/688,915 CTNF 92319 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to application filed on March 4, 2024. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2024 and 08/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Preliminary amendments filed on March 4, 2024 have been entered. The abstract of the disclosure has been amended. The specification has been amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been amended. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 5 and 9-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been examined. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0025]: Language “According to an aspect of an embodiment … in a predined first movement increment …” should read “According to an aspect of an embodiment … in a predined predefined first movement increment …” in order to correct for minor informalities . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language “determining a position and orientation of the objects based on the accumulated object residence map and a world coordinate map of lanes or lane centers of the objects in a world coordinate system” should read “determining a position and an orientation of the objects based on the accumulated object residence map and a world coordinate map of lanes or lane centers of the objects in a world coordinate system” in order to correct for minor informalities. Claim language “determining a position and an orientation of the road monitoring device from the position the orientation of the objects’ should read “determining a position and orientation of the road monitoring device from the position and the orientation of the objects” in order to correct for minor informalities and clarify the recited subject matter . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: performing dilation and subsequently erosion on the accumulated object resistance residence map, wherein a degree of filtering during the erosion is set to be greater by a predefined degree than a degree of filtering during the dilation ; and orienting the accumulated object residence map on the basis of the world coordinate map” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising : adjusting the accumulated object residence map from a predefined starting position and predefined starting orientation in a predefined first movement increment and rotated in [[the]] a respective position in a predefined first rotational increment” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 3, further comprising adjusting the accumulated object residence map around the position and angular orientation determined in a predefined second movement increment that is finer than the predefined first movement increment and/or rotated in a predefined second rotational increment that is finer than the predefined first rotational increment” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: defining a rough target position and/or a rough target orientation of the road monitoring device in relation to the world coordinate map to the road monitoring device ; and calibrating the road monitoring device starting from the rough target position and/or the rough target orientation” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising : evaluating the objects with regard to object type classes and/or position change speed; and including only those the objects which correspond to predefined object type classes and/or [[the]] a predefined range of the position change speed in the accumulated object residence map” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim language should read: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising adjusting the predefined calibration period to a quantity of detected objects in a variable manner over time, if a predefined quantity of objects could not be assigned to the accumulated object residence map” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test: the limitation “generating an accumulated object residence map based on the positions of the objects in relation to the road monitoring device” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to accumulate data and obtain a result (i.e., an accumulated object residence map; see Fig. 3, and specification at [0012], [0046]-[0048], [0053]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, see specification at [0043]), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements (see specification at [0019]), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to transform data. the limitation “determining a position and orientation of the objects based on the accumulated object residence map and a world coordinate map of lanes or lane centers of the objects in a world coordinate system” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., a position and orientation of the objects; see specification at [0015], [0025]-[0027], [0056]-[0060]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to match information from different sources in order to derive additional data. the limitation “determining a position and orientation of the road monitoring device from the position the orientation of the objects” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information (i.e., a position and orientation of the road monitoring device; see specification at [0014]-[0016], [0062]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements (see specification at [0019]), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to choose the best result from the matched information. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test. In addition, the examiner notes that as explained in the current Office’s guidance “For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text for additional elements): “A method of calibrating a road monitoring device” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and “for a predefined calibration period, recording positions of objects detected by the road monitoring device in relation to the road monitoring device” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., road monitoring device, see specification at [0043]; see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or appends the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0019]; see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test. Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., calibrating a road monitoring device), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements (i.e., road monitoring device, see specification at [0043]) specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b), section III); and append computer implementation (see specification at [0019]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking)” (see MPEP 2106.05(d), section II) and in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility : “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (p. 8, section “ ii. A Claim That Requires A Computer May Still Recite A Mental Process ”, par. 1). The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible. With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because: they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 2-4 and 6-8), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claim 6), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ( Step 2A – Prong Two ) and/or does not provide significantly more ( Step 2B ) when considering the claimed invention as a whole. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Zavoli (US 20090228204 A1), hereinafter ‘Zavoli’ . Regarding claim 1. Zavoli discloses: A method (Fig. 6) of calibrating a road monitoring device (Fig. 2, item 140 – “navigation system”; [0029], [0043], [0064]: a navigation system of a vehicle matches sensor data to map information in order to improve its position estimate (see also [0012]-[0016], [0067], [0076]) ), the method comprising: for a predefined calibration period, recording positions of objects detected by the road monitoring device in relation to the road monitoring device (Fig. 6, item 232; [0041]-[0043], [0075]: sensors (Fig. 2, item 172), included in the navigation system of the vehicle, record information of physical objects relative to the vehicle (see also [0045], [0067], [0070], [0074]); examiner submits that a period of time (predefined calibration period) is implied during measurement for the signals to be sent and received by the sensors (see [0084]-[0088], [0119]-[0120]) ); generating an accumulated object residence map based on the positions of the objects in relation to the road monitoring device (Fig. 6, item 232; [0075]: a scene based on the number and distribution of detected objects (see [0071], see also application’s specification at [0012]) is extracted from the sensor gathered data (see also [0045], [0067], [0070], [0074]) ); determining a position and orientation of the objects based on the accumulated object residence map and a world coordinate map (Fig. 2, item 142 – “digital map”) of lanes or lane centers of the objects in a world coordinate system (Fig. 1, item 118 – “coordinate system”; Fig. 6, item 236; [0074]-[0075]: objects in the scene are compared with map-provided objects in a coordinate system in order to determine their position and direction (see also [0067]-[0069], [0073], [0084]-[0100]) ); and determining a position and orientation of the road monitoring device from the position the orientation of the objects (Fig. 6, item 238; [0044], [0075]: position information is calculated based on matching objects within map-scenes (see also [0079]-[0080], [0084]-[0099]) ). Regarding claim 6. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above. Zavoli further discloses: defining a rough target position and/or target orientation in relation to the world coordinate map to the road monitoring device (Fig. 6, item 230; [0043], [0075]: initial position and heading of the vehicle, which includes the navigation system, is obtained ); and calibrating the road monitoring device starting from the rough target position and/or the target orientation (Fig. 6, item 238; [0043]-[0044], [0075]: initial position and heading are used during the analysis to obtain vehicle position information ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavoli, in view of Aghdasi (US 20130128050 A1), hereinafter ‘Aghdasi’ . Regarding claim 2. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above. Zavoli further discloses: orienting the object residence map on the basis of the world coordinate map ([0073], [0084]-[0100]: objects in the scene are compared with map-provided objects in a coordinate system in order to determine their position and direction, which implies orienting the scene to correspond to the digital map (see also [0050], [0054]) ) Zavoli does not disclose: performing dilation and subsequently erosion on the accumulated object resistance map, wherein a degree of filtering during erosion is set to be greater by a predefined degree than a degree of filtering during. Aghdasi teaches: “The foreground pixels are grouped and labeled 545 into image blobs, groups of similar pixels, etc., using, for example, morphological filtering, which includes non-linear filtering procedures applied to an image. In some embodiments, morphological filtering may include erosion and dilation processing. Erosion generally decreases the sizes of objects and removes small noises by subtracting objects with a radius smaller than the structuring element (e.g., 4-neightbor or 8-neightbor). Dilation generally increases the sizes of objects, filling in holes and broken areas, and connecting areas that are separated by spaces smaller than the size of the structuring element. Resultant image blobs may represent the moveable objects detected in a frame. Thus, for example, morphological filtering may be used to remove “objects” or “blobs” that are made up of, for example, a single pixel scattered in an image” ([0060]: images (analogous to accumulated object resistance map) obtained from cameras for calibration purposes (see [0052]) are first processed using dilation and erosion, with these two techniques applying different filtering criteria: erosion subtracts objects with a radius smaller than the structing element, while dilation connects are separated by spaces smaller that the size of the structuring element (analogous to a degree of filtering during erosion is set to be greater by a predefined degree than a degree of filtering during dilation) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavoli in view of Aghdasi to perform dilation and subsequently erosion on the accumulated object resistance map, wherein a degree of filtering during erosion is set to be greater by a predefined degree than a degree of filtering during dilation, in order to remove noise from sensor data and improve analysis accuracy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavoli . Regarding claim 3. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above. Zavoli does not explicitly disclose: adjusting the accumulated object residence map from a predefined starting position and starting orientation in a predefined first movement increment and rotated in the respective position in a predefined first rotational increment ([0057]-[0058], [0062]). However, Zavoli teaches: “In accordance with an embodiment the absolute positioning logic obtains data from absolute positioning sensors 164, including for example GPS or Galileo receivers. This data can be used to obtain an initial estimate as to the absolute position of the vehicle” ([0043]: initial estimate of the absolute position of the vehicle is obtained for the analysis (see also [0075]) ); and “In accordance with an embodiment, features are included to make the data received from the two sources be as comparable as possible. Scaling or transformation can be included to perform this. In accordance with an embodiment, the navigation system can mathematically correlate the raw data in the two scenes. For example, if the scene is constructed as a 2D “image” (and here the term image is used loosely to also include such raw data as radar clusters and radio frequency signals), then the two scene versions (vehicle and map) can be correlated in two dimensions. If the scene is constructed as a 3D “image” then the two scene versions can be correlated in three dimensions … Correlation can be performed on the three x y and z coordinates of the scene, to find the best fit and indeed the level of fit, i.e. the level of similarity between the scenes” ([0057]: data from sensors and map are correlated in order to find the best fit, the analysis including mathematical processing such as scaling and transformation (analogous to a predefined first rotational increment) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavoli to adjust the accumulated object residence map from a predefined starting position and starting orientation in a predefined first movement increment and rotated in the respective position in a predefined first rotational increment, in order to provide faster results while improving the analysis by using reference information. Regarding claim 4. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 3 as described above. Zavoli does not explicitly disclose: adjusting the accumulated object residence map around the position and angular orientation determined in a predefined second movement increment that is finer than the first movement increment and/or rotated in a predefined second rotational increment that is finer than the first rotational increment. However, Zavoli teaches: “In accordance with an embodiment, features are included to make the data received from the two sources be as comparable as possible. Scaling or transformation can be included to perform this. In accordance with an embodiment, the navigation system can mathematically correlate the raw data in the two scenes. For example, if the scene is constructed as a 2D “image” (and here the term image is used loosely to also include such raw data as radar clusters and radio frequency signals), then the two scene versions (vehicle and map) can be correlated in two dimensions. If the scene is constructed as a 3D “image” then the two scene versions can be correlated in three dimensions … Correlation can be performed on the three x y and z coordinates of the scene, to find the best fit and indeed the level of fit, i.e. the level of similarity between the scenes. Typically, during implementation of the system, a design engineer will select the best range and increments to use in the correlation function” ([0057]-[0058]: data from sensors and map are correlated in order to find the best fit, the analysis including mathematical processing such as scaling and transformation as well as the selection of best ranges and increments to use in the correlation (analogous to using a predefined second movement increment that is finer than the first movement increment and/or rotated in a predefined second rotational increment that is finer than the first rotational increment) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavoli to adjust the accumulated object residence map around the position and angular orientation determined in a predefined second movement increment that is finer than the first movement increment and/or rotated in a predefined second rotational increment that is finer than the first rotational increment, in order to verify best fit during correlation of data. Regarding claim 7. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above. Zavoli does not explicitly disclose: evaluating the objects with regard to object type classes and/or position change speed; and including only those objects which correspond to predefined object type classes and/or the predefined range of the position change speed in the accumulated object residence map. However, Zavoli teaches: “Also, the number and distribution of objects collected versus the number and distribution of objects that make up the true scene and are detected by the sensor will affect correlation performance. Collecting too many objects is unnecessary, and will increase expense and processor load. In contrast, collecting too few of the objects present will leave the system with too much correlation noise to allow it to make reliable matches. The density and type of objects to be stored in the map is an engineering parameter which is dependent on sensor and performance levels desired” ([0071]: amount and type of objects collected for processing depends on sensor and performance levels desired (see also Aghdasi at [0042]-[0043] regarding obtaining data about speed of object and using moving objects for analysis and [0034] regarding categories of objects) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavoli to evaluate the objects with regard to object type classes and/or position change speed; and to include only those objects which correspond to predefined object type classes and/or the predefined range of the position change speed in the accumulated object residence map, in order to reduce computational cost while acquiring data relevant for orientation determination (e.g., moving information). Regarding claim 8. Zavoli discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above. Zavoli does not explicitly disclose: adjusting the calibration period to a quantity of detected objects in a variable manner over time, if a predefined quantity of objects could not be assigned to the accumulated object residence map. However, Zavoli teaches: “Also, the number and distribution of objects collected versus the number and distribution of objects that make up the true scene and are detected by the sensor will affect correlation performance. Collecting too many objects is unnecessary, and will increase expense and processor load. In contrast, collecting too few of the objects present will leave the system with too much correlation noise to allow it to make reliable matches. The density and type of objects to be stored in the map is an engineering parameter which is dependent on sensor and performance levels desired” ([0071]: amount and type of objects collected for processing depends on sensor and performance levels desired ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavoli to adjust the calibration period to a quantity of detected objects in a variable manner over time, if a predefined quantity of objects could not be assigned to the accumulated object residence map, in order to capture enough information for making reliable matches without increasing expense and processor load, as discussed by Zavoli ([0071]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ferguson; Dave et al., US 9719801 B1, Methods and systems for calibrating sensors using road map data Reference discloses an autonomous vehicle that calibrates sensors by comparing information collected by the sensors with information from the surrounding environment. OH; Young Chul et al., US 20180267172 A1, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECOGNIZING POSITION OF VEHICLE Reference discloses a system for recognizing a position of a vehicle by combining lane measurements, map data, LIDAR readings and GPS information. Zavoli; Walter B., US 20080243378 A1, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE NAVIGATION AND PILOTING INCLUDING ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE COORDINATES Reference discloses combining sensor information with map data in order to determine vehicle’s position for enhancing/assisting driving and collision avoidance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/688,915 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights